Client relationship in jeopardy – help!

[Mike Smith]

Explain nice and gentle, like you have here.

You could take this as an opportunity to phone or call in, and ask exactly why they want your rushes – see if you can turn it into a business opportunity for you.

It may be no more than that a new person has started in your client department or in central services, and is wanting to implement a new policy. As the client, you can see that it’s good for them to have as much control over their material as they can – at least edit masters, better, perhaps better, edit project files, through to all source materials, rushes graphics and effects files. But if you did not agree to this in contract, you do not have to supply.

From past threads, it seems that many on this forum are happy to hand over all rushes and master tapes. Personally, I always refuse this request if it comes up: master tape at additional cost, rushes just no. But that’s up to you.

BTW, in UK law, you have a contract, regardless of whether they’ve signed something. It’s just harder to prove what was agreed if there’s nothing in writing. They invited you to tender, you made an offer of services (preferably in writing, with as much detail spelled out as possible, or at worst you kept a written record of what you offered, right?) They have accepted your offer, either verbally or in writing – your contract is formed. There’s overwhelming evidence of a contract in that they arranged with you for a work schedule, and they paid you. Any dispute would be not over the existence of a contract, but over just what was agreed – which is where your written offer of services will be important. If you have a written acceptance or a “let’s get started” e-mail so much the better, but you won’t need it.

As you say, in UK law the rights to all materials generated (including the delivered programme) will rest with the producer unless your contract specifies something else.

[Neil Weaver]

Thanks Mike,
There’s plenty of emails and I give each client a production pack outlining the video concept, costs, timescales etc so as you say, there’s enough there almost not to warrant a contract. What it doesn’t contain and what hasn’t come up until now is who owns the raw footage and they ain’t gonna like being told no!

Well, the conversation about it is tomorrow, so I’ll let you know how it goes…

[Walter Biscardi]

[Neil Weaver] “In the absence of any contracts between us, (I repeatedly requested they sign, but they flatly refused), the raw footage is mine, forming a valuable archive of a wide range of subjects. I am not prepared to hand over any footage to either them or a competitor, but I am prepared to sell the footage to them at a standard archive rate under a strict license governing its use.
“

Not the way I work, nor does anyone else I know. If the client paid for your time and the raw tape stock, the footage is theirs. The only time it is yours is if you are paying for the production yourself or you have a contract in place that says you own the footage.

Otherwise the client owns everything and you should turn it all over. I don’t understand how folks claim they can own something they were paid to do. Lots of folks on this very forum feel they own anything they shoot but I find that very unethical and would certainly not hire anyone who does work that way.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.

Read my Blog!

STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!

[Michael Hancock]

Legally, Walter, the production company owns the footage unless there is a contract that states otherwise, or there’s a work-for-hire contract.

So if someone hires you to shoot something and ownership is not specifically spelled out in a contract, you own the footage. You’re limited in what you can do with it (basically edit it for them or stick it on a shelf), but you have no legal obligation to give it to the client should they choose to go elsewhere. I’ve seen it played out between legal teams and in the US, without a contract stating ownership, it falls back on the production company, not the client.

Having said that, it’s up to you to decide what to do.

Michael.

[Mick Haensler]

Let’s say I have a friend who does custom fabrication. Each project requires that he make a mold to fabricate the final product. The client pays him to deliver the final product, not create the mold. Does the client own the mold or does my friend?? I look at raw footage kind of like this, it’s the mold with which we create the final product. The client doesn’t pay us to shoot footage, they pay us to deliver a final product. Sometimes the final product might include stock footage that we purchase, does the client now own that as well?? In a strict sense it could be construed as raw footage as well.

That being said, I have never refused a client the raw footage or charged extra for it. Like Walter, I feel it belongs to the client, but I can see both sides of the story. If the client wants the footage to do something in house, that is their right. And when it comes out looking like A%$, they will be back. If the client wants the footage to take to a competitor, than you haven’t done your job to keep the client happy. No one can steal a happy client. I do find it interesting that they didn’t offer up front why the wanted it.

Personally, I like the client to have the raw footage. If something happens to it, it’s on their head, not mine.

Mick Haensler
Higher Ground Media

Mick Haensler
Higher Ground Media

[Tim Kolb]

[Mick Haensler] “Each project requires that he make a mold to fabricate the final product. The client pays him to deliver the final product, not create the mold. Does the client own the mold or does my friend??”

Did the client pay to have the mold created? I bet there’s a charge…why wouldn’t the client own that?

I’m with Walter on most corporate work for hire…I reserve the right to use the work product to show what I can do unless it’s something top secret…but otherwise…it’s theirs.

The ‘auteur’owning of the raw footage is something that was designed a long time ago to protect independent news photographers…who get paid when they sell an image.
It’s not a concept that really travels well to a corporate job where all your expenses as well as an hourly fee have been paid…

Look around you. The world’s economic fortunes are down the tubes…this double-dipping fee structure won’t fly for long…

Neil, I guess if they didn’t sign a contract and that’s the law of the land, you’ve got them trapped…

Good for you…I guess.

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

[Walter Biscardi]

[Michael Hancock] “Having said that, it’s up to you to decide what to do. “

Yep, we can play the legal game all day, but ethically, what’s the right thing to do? Ethically to me, it’s proper that the client owns all raw footage.

I have gotten plenty of requests from clients to get the raw footage at some later date. I always send it along, no questions asked. Most times they come back saying they tried to have someone else edit a project, etc… and it didn’t work out so they come back to me.

The only thing I do retain unless it is paid for is the project file. That’s my creation and if they want the project file, they have to pay extra for that. That is spelled out in all our contracts with clients. They are paying for my creative services and the project files are part of that creative service. There is an additional fee to hand over Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Color, Motion files to the client.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.

Read my Blog!

STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!

[Todd Terry]

I guess we do things a little differently, but apparently get away with it.

Our contracts here always explicitly state that we retain ownership of the footage. I know hindsight is 20/20 and that doesn’t help Neil in this case, but in the future it might.

We have never had a client or potential client balk at this restriction.

We mostly do broadcast commercials, and our contracts stip that is what they are buying… the finished production to be used as a whole. They do not have independent access to the raw footage (although it is available to them free for any additional production here), nor can they take the finished commercial and hack it up or do anything else with it without our approval.

We’re not just being possessive… it’s about protecting rights, not only our own but those of others as well. Here, chances are that couple-of-years-old footage from a commercial shoot (for example) might include acting performances for which rights have long since expired. If we turned over raw footage we lose management of the rights that we have secured, and that can get us in trouble with actors, agents, and unions. I did a shoot in an airport once, and when the client came back to us for a recut a year or so later I had to explain that every person in the crowd were paid actors… and that while some of them were on a one-time buyout, several of the principals were only contracted for the initial 13-week run of the campaign. If I had simply turned over the footage the client would have undoubtedly just used it… and I would be fielding angry phone calls.

I only know of once that we have ever had a former client violate the terms, by taking a finished spot here and having someone else (actually a TV station did it for free) cut on it and turn it into something else. The problem is that they reused a music track that was specifically licensed for the previous production, as well as reusing an announcer tag that they did not pay new performance rights on. We called them on it, they gave us the “Oh, I didn’t know we couldn’t do that,” and pulled the spot.

Now, all that being said, yes sometimes we do turn over raw footage… some clients hire us just to shoot raw footage for them, and that’s fine. BUT… we do charge a higher rate for that though…. there is very low overhead on edit jobs, but very high overhead on shoots… so for large full-production jobs we are essentially giving away a portion of the shoot in order to secure the much-more-profitable edit gig. Ergo, a shoot-only gig has a substantially higher rate.

In the future, just spell it out in writing clearly in advance and there will be no question about it.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[John Davidson]

I’d hand it over as well. It’s not worth pissing them off and losing a client that’s giving you so much repeat business. If it really is an inconvenience to you, maybe you can bill a few hundred bucks for your time preparing the materials. Who knows what they’re going to use it for? Who cares? With so much repeat business you’re doing something right. Trust in that and be prepared for the next project.

John
Magic Feather Inc.

[Timothy J. allen]

As a person that spends time on both sides of the fence as a client and video production provider, I’d make them copies of the dubs and simply charge them for the time and tape stock.

Did they not pay for the video shoots?

As a client, I would expect to be able to get the raw footage if I paid for the shoot and the tape stock. (As a side note, I don’t prohibit a contracted videographer from using footage they shot on my dime for their demo or advertising purposes either – as long as the footage is not confidential or proprietary, and as long as they don’t make false claims about their role in the production.) If the production company had stock footage on hand that they already paid for and I wasn’t charged for it, I certainly wouldn’t expect to get copies of it in any format than in the finished product.

On the other hand, I don’t expect to get project files, unless that’s spelled out in the contract – and if it is, that “deliverable” is for a different negotiated rate than video production and post.

I also don’t give out project files when I’m the Editor unless that’s negotiated beforehand. But raw footage? As long as they pay for the time and the tape, it’s theirs.